08 October 2016

Dr. Martin Blank: "... Protect the children. The children are most vulnerable. They are the ones that are going to suffer the most, especially with this push to do so under the guise of good education. I think the introduction of Wi-Fi in schools is sinful. It’s criminal. Good education doesn’t need this. There are ways to bring these programs in without this technology... There’s absolutely no need to have children sit there with this exposure for however many hours they keep it on. They could bring in the programs by cables, or books, but they don’t need Wi-Fi. I think children are going to succumb to this in larger numbers, and we’re going to see a higher incidence among children of things like brain cancer. It’s not high yet, but I think it’s going to get much higher."

Extract - We are reproducing below the Epoch Times interview with Dr. Martin Blank.

... One of the contributing authors to the BioInitiative Report is Dr. Martin Blank, a scientist, lecturer, and retired professor from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. He has investigated the cellular and biological effects of EMFs. The New York-born Blank now lives in Victoria, Canada, and has PhDs in both physical chemistry and colloid science. Epoch Times talked to Blank about why there is so much controversy among scientists over the safety of EMFs, and why children are most at risk. Answers are edited for clarity and brevity.Epoch Times: I’ll start off by asking you to clarify a technical question. There are many frequencies in our environment today: cellular technology, Wi-Fi, and the energy that comes into our house through power lines. I’m tempted to call all of it electromagnetic radiation. Is that correct?

Dr. Martin Blank: Technically, no. To get radiation you really have to get the electric and magnetic fields acting together so that the electric field will cause the electrons to move, which will generate a magnetic field. They get intertwined. And it’s only when this is happening so fast up at the radiofrequency range that you can get the true blending.

Technically, electromagnetism doesn’t exist until you get around the radiofrequency range. Electric fields exist in the extremely low frequency (ELF) range. With power frequency, for example, you have separate electric and magnetic fields. The electric field will cause current to flow, and the flowing current will cause a magnetic field. But they’re not linked the same way as electromagnetics.

These are technical differences but we kind of lump them together when we speak of them in a loose fashion. It’s because the same forces are acting on the body. The body has electrons, and they are the lightest of the stable particles, and they are affected by both fields.

People speak about electromagnetic radiation, and I’m guilty of using this loose jargon myself, but you should know that there are differences. The differences get smoothed out when you get to the radiofrequency range and higher. For example, the new 5G that’s coming out, that’s in the radiofrequency range. The 4G is radiofrequency. The 2G is electromagnetic.

You have to get used to this looseness, especially when you have this intermixing of specialists and amateurs. Physicists would go wild if you spoke this way.

Epoch Times: Some scientists insist that these energy fields are at too low a frequency to affect our bodies in any negative way. What do you think?

Dr. Blank: There are a lot of physicists who say this. I’ve had this discussion many, many years ago with physicists who say this can’t do anything if it’s below thermal level. They think that it has to be at a level that can raise the surface temperature before it will have an effect. The answer is no. These effects occur at very low levels. They occur down at the ELF range (60 Hz).

Some of the things I studied were the basic enzymatic actions that cause ion movements in cells. There is something called sodium/potassium ATP. It’s an enzyme that sits in most membranes, and it pumps ions across the membrane. It will take sodium ions and pump them out of a cell, and move potassium ions into a cell. This is critical. Without this, nerves will not conduct and the cell will not function.

This very basic enzyme has a threshold level of three or four milliGauss. You can’t feel it, but that’s the level at which it responds. When people talk about radiofrequency stuff, this is thousands of times higher energy. There’s no question that even very minute forces can have an effect on a biological system.

Epoch Times: What does the science say in terms of the impact these frequencies have on our health?

Dr. Blank: This is a complex thing. I just told you about one simple enzyme, but we studied a few enzymes and they are all affected. These fields are potent. If you’re a lone electron sitting in the middle of nowhere and there’s a field nearby, you’re going to respond to those fields at relatively low levels.

For a system, you need a slightly stronger force to be able to cause a change in it. But we get changes in the functioning of cells with relatively small fields. That’s been shown.

When you go higher than the normal range you can get damage. That’s what scares people, and it has been found to be real. Back in 1995, Henry Laipublished a paper showing that if you took DNA and subjected it to radiation, 60 Hz stuff, you got fragments coming off. You were breaking off parts of the molecule. There was a lot of controversy about this, and the forces against this scientific finding paid people to do experiments. God knows what they did, but they didn’t find the result they were hoping for.

This is damage that is not repairable. When you break a piece of DNA you’ve broken the code.

There’s a paper in Galley that hasn’t been published yet. They found that these fields cause damage to DNA inside a cell. They used to only show this with test tube experiments, but now they show the damage inside the cell. There are little fragments coming off the DNA itself.

There is no question that this causes damage. I don’t know what you want to make of it, but this is damage that is not repairable. When you break a piece of DNA you’ve broken the code. It’s not like when you get a cut and the skin heals. If you damage the DNA that’s called a mutation, and you affect the function of a cell. So depending on where the damage has occurred, you can cause a lot of problems.

Epoch Times: How is this bad? What purpose does DNA serve in our body?

Dr. Blank: When I learned about DNA in high school I was taught that this was hereditary stuff. It works when you make a child, and then it gets locked up until the child matures and makes his own child. There was an understanding that it was just dormant in the cells.

But when I learned biology at the university level, they taught that DNA does everything all the time. It has the whole code in it. You need the DNA to keep the system going. It’s telling the body which proteins to make and which systems to turn on. It’s upgrading all the time, and if you cause damage in that thing you’re causing a lot of problems in the cell.

Often cells can’t survive this DNA damage, but the body has a lot of resilience. It can take a lot of damage. The fact is, you can cause damage to DNA, and some other part will take over and get it to function. We are very fortunate that way. This is why our species survives. There’s a lot of redundancy built in, which is essential in a world where there are all these bad influences that can cause damage.

But DNA is always active, and very necessary, and it’s affected by lots of things: temperature, chemicals, and this electromagnetic stuff. And there is more coming. We’ve got 5G coming on now, and it’s unconscionable. All the damage caused by 2G, 3G and so on, it’s going to be compounded even more. The interesting thing about this new 5G is the characteristics of the radiation are such that it is stronger (more energetic), but it doesn’t go nearly as far as the earlier ones. So you have to have more stations, more antennas put up. This means that people who are electro-sensitive are probably going to find it much harder to evade and to get along with all this other radiation around them.

Epoch Times: Are these fields really more harmful to children?

Dr. Blank: There is no question in my mind that children are far more vulnerable. This is accepted by people who understand how this radiation works, and understand the difference between children and adults.

Biologically, when we compare an adult and a child, the child has a thinner cranium bone, and the nerves in their brain are not as fully myelinated. This means the child will get more penetration as a result of the same kind of exposure. And of course, another thing about a child is that they’re still growing, so whatever damage is done is going to propagate.

Epoch Times: Given the evidence of how these forces affect our DNA, why aren’t their stronger warnings against exposure, especially for children.

Dr. Blank: The industry has lobbied very expensively, and they have a lot of guys with scientific credentials, although very few of them have any experience in biology. For them to choose the increase in temperature as the criterion with all this new information about molecular damage that results from exposure, it’s just unconscionable.

If you pay off the right people you get the results that you want. I’m not being cynical, I’m just saying it the way that it is.

Their theory is that if these fields don’t raise the temperature it doesn’t cause any damage. And they’ve gotten it to stick. This goes way back to the Clinton Administration. They measure energy by its ability to raise temperature, and they set up a standard that says you cannot have any medical evidence about this sort of stuff.

We don’t live in an ideal system. You can buy opinions. If you pay off the right people you get the results that you want. I’m not being cynical, I’m just saying it the way that it is. The people who are testifying on behalf of industry are consultants for industry, or they have contracts from industry. But they also have scientific credentials.

The defense and prosecution both manage to find credible witnesses who will testify to their positions, but in science you would think it would be more difficult. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons why scientists will feel that a case is overstated or there are exceptions. Not in this case though. It is quite clear that the radiation does damage. It is linked with a lot of diseases and problems. Those who deny it are just sticking their head in the sand, and saying it’s only a matter of raising the temperature.

Epoch Times: What recommendations would you make to people who wish to protect themselves from these fields?

Dr. Blank: There are limited things you can accomplish, but I think one of those is to protect the children. The children are most vulnerable. They are the ones that are going to suffer the most, especially with this push to do so under the guise of good education.

I think the introduction of Wi-Fi in schools is sinful. It’s criminal. Good education doesn’t need this. There are ways to bring these programs in without this technology. Generations have actually learned better without this. There’s absolutely no need to have children sit there with this exposure for however many hours they keep it on. They could bring in the programs by cables, or books, but they don’t need Wi-Fi. I think children are going to succumb to this in larger numbers, and we’re going to see a higher incidence among children of things like brain cancer. It’s not high yet, but I think it’s going to get much higher.

Epoch Times: I’ve read that other countries are taking this more seriously.

Dr. Blank: Yes. France, for example. They made a big thing when the National Library in Paris rejected the use of the Wi-Fi system. The fact they do it is probably interesting in terms of encouraging us. But we should do it because the evidence is there. We should be guided by the evidence, not a “me too” kind of thing.

Epoch Times: Are there any precautions that you personally take to limit your own exposure?

Dr. Blank: I do own a cellphone, but I only use it when I go to the States, and I only use it if I have to. I don’t have Wi-Fi. You need a certain amount of this technology in order to do certain things, but I try to live without it.

Some of these things you can opt out of, but I think it’s going to become harder and harder to avoid this kind of thing as they put up more and more of these antennas around neighborhoods.

As a civilization we believe that progress is good, and that we should buy into it. But sometimes new things aren’t always to our benefit.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search This Blog

HELLO

My name is Meris. Through these articles, I would like to raise awareness of health and environment issues in order to better protect ourselves, our children and future generations. See also my Website in French Mieux Prévenir. For information in other languages, see my Facebook page.

Followers

Follow by Email

Follow via RSS feed

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by this site are not necessarily those of its creator. While the creator of the site makes every effort to present current and accurate information, the site may contain outdated material. All information provided is for information purposes only and is not intended to replace medical advice offered by a physician or other health professionals. The creator of the site is not liable for any damage or loss related to accuracy or completeness of information.